Fossil Find Is Missing Link in Human Evolution, Scientists Say

National Geographic News ^ | April 13, 2006 | John Roach

[Senator Bedfellow]

When the famous skeleton of an early human ancestor known as Lucy was discovered in Africa in the 1970s, scientists asked: Where did she come from?

Now, fossils found in the same region are providing solid answers, researchers have announced.

Lucy is a 3.5-foot-tall (1.1-meter-tall) adult skeleton that belongs to an early human ancestor, or hominid, known as Australopithecus afarensis.

The species lived between 3 million and 3.6 million years ago and is widely considered an ancestor of modern humans.

The new fossils are from the most primitive species of Australopithecus, known as Australopithecus anamensis. The remains date to about 4.1 million years ago, according to Tim White, a biologist at the University of California, Berkeley.

White co-directed the team that discovered the new fossils in Ethiopia (map) in a region of the Afar desert known as the Middle Awash.

The team says the newly discovered fossils are a no-longer-missing link between early and later forms of Australopithecus and to a more primitive hominid known as Ardipithecus.

"What the new discovery does is very nicely fill this gap between the earliest of the Lucy species at 3.6 million years and the older [human ancestor] Ardipithecus ramidus, which is dated at 4.4 million years," White said.

The new fossil find consists mainly of jawbone fragments, upper and lower teeth, and a thigh bone.

The fossils are described in today's issue of the journal Nature.

Found Links

According to White, the discovery supports the hypothesis that Lucy was a direct descendent of Australopithecus anamensis.

[Alter Kaker]

Looks like this isn't just a new talking point; it's a new tactic- talking points that can't be refuted because they're never explained in the first place.

You haven't refuted the Hoober Hypothesis, the Pitcairn Postulate or the Crunksfeld Conjecture either! Clearly you EVILutionists CONCEDE that your GOD is false!

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The purpose for mentioning them is that there are many reading the forum that my not realize that there are scientists that do not believe in the Theory of Evolution."

A tiny minority.

"Of course my credentials do not make me an expert on the Theory of Evolution. Do yours?"

Credentials don't mean anything; it's the strength of the argument.

"There is a world of difference between proving that someone or something existed in history and proving something in science. ..
In the realm of scientific proof..."

Science doesn't deal in proofs. It deals with evidence.

"or accepting a theory as fact with a high degree of confidence you need direct observation or experimentation."

What about indirect observation? How many people have seen an atom, directly?

"The Theory of Evolution is very weak because no direct observation is ever possible only conjecture."

See above about atoms.

"My other tool is experimentation. If someone could tell my how to take a single celled organism in the lab and turn it into a fruit fly I would love to hear it."

Why is it that people who attack evolution have no grasp of even the basics of the subject? Why would anybody think that the inability to change a single celled organism into a fly in the laboratory has ANYTHING to do with how evolution operates?

"We could spend lots of time arguing over the fossil record or dating methods. We could line up all sorts of “experts” on both sides to use as cannon fodder."

We could provide evidence, you, not so much.

"Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (Paperback)
by Michael J. Behe "

Do you know that Behe accepts both the long age of the earth and common descent? As does Dembski and a number of leading ID proponents.

[js1138]

Since you recommend reading Behe, I think you should know that he accepts the fossil record as convincing evidence of common descent. Not to mention the biochemical evidence.

Behe says he accepts common descent as a given.

Just thought you'd like to know.

[Alter Kaker]

I did a Google search, and actually came up with a couple of photos of Zebras (gliding, not parachuting) to earth from their habitat in space. Given the evidence, I have no choice but to concede the point:

Aerial view of flying zebra from outer space.

Side view of Zebra (B-26 sub species, known scientifically as Equus zebra maraudus) gliding to earth. Note distinctive zebra markings on wings.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" You are saying the earth is the center of the universe..."

Blah blah blah. That's his talking point, and he won't budge from it no matter how silly it makes him look. He thinks that because the matter that makes up the earth and solar system came from somewhere else, that means that life here therefore is extraterrestrial. That would of course make us all ET's.

Ah, the fallacy of composition.

[Liberal Classic]

Sure, doctor. Since evolution is a lie, feel free to prescribe as many antibiotics as you want.

[hosepipe]

[ The laugh of a man caught in a less than racially sensitive post... ]

I see, "its hard out there for a race PimP"...

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" I see, "its hard out there for a race PimP"..."

I am not concerned how difficult it is for you. You equated pygmies with orangs and gorillas. Now you're understandably running away from it. I'd feel ashamed if I were you too. :)

[Alter Kaker]

If someone could tell my how to take a single celled organism in the lab and turn it into a fruit fly I would love to hear it.

That would be intelligent design, not evolution.

Forum sites are so interesting the amount of vitriol is truly outstanding.

But is it really surprising given the frontal assault your ilk are waging on the integrity of the public school system?

I offered my credentials, I have yet to hear anyone offer theirs. If you have to be a paleontologist or taxonomist in order to hold an opinion on the Theory of Evolution then what are we all doing here talking about this?

You can't have it both ways: either you are an expert on evolution or you're not, and if you're not then your credentials are irrelevant. I have a Ph.D in an unrelated field (physics) too -- and it neither validates nor invalidates my points.

So now I have people trying to convince me that you can take some fossils and extrapolate from them an explanation for the diversification of species and the origins of man?

Yes. However, we don't just have fossils at our disposal, we also have primitive and derived morphologies in extant species, and genetic ties as well. One of the amazing things about the field is that you can make all kinds of hypotheses (concerning the morphology of "missing links" that are later found, about the genetic similarities between species, etc.) that are testable. You can tally the number of parallel random mutations in mtDNA, for example, and determine the date that two species diverged -- and what's remarkable is that that date is inevitably within the range of dates we get from fossil evidence -- so we get two different, complimentary sources of testable information.

This stuff is textbook scientific method. And I should remind you that you can't reproduce astronomical observations in the lab either -- do you consider astronomy to be a science?

We could spend lots of time arguing over the fossil record or dating methods.

Please, go ahead. Challenge whatever you'd like.

[js1138]

As they sang at Woodstock, "We are stardust..."

True, but unless entire ecosystems fall from the sky in just the right chronological order, irrelevant to Darwinian evolution.

[Condorman]

Frankly, the Bible's version of creation makes more sense to me.

What "makes sense" to you does not a science make. What do you take issue with regarding 1) intraspecies variation, 2) heredity, and 3) unequal reproductive success?

[Condorman]

Who's John Galt?

Don't be vulgar.

[Condorman]

Evolution is based on a lie,

Inquiring minds want to know: Upon what lie is evolution based?

[donh]

This is an excellent site on philosophy.

This is a semi-excellent site on philosophy, an excellent site on philosophy wouldn't be presenting philosophy from a particular, and somewhat less than mainstream, philosphy's point of view.

[andysandmikesmom]

I thought we were not supposed to use the word 'lie' anymore..yet you have managed to use the word 4 times in one sentence, which sentence appears to be nothing more, than a lot of general whining, and boo-hooing over evolution...specifics are needed...what are these lies you speak of?..do provide specific examples, links, and real evidence...

I am sure we will all be waiting for you to come forward with specific examples of what these 'lies' are...

You seem to denigrate a field of study, which may be in flux, according to your own estimations?...do you apply that standard to all fields of study?...like medicine?...if the field of medicine were not in constant flux, we would still be bleeding people to cure them of what ails them, rather than getting them good effective medicine...medical personel would not be washing their hands when dealing with patients because, heck, who wants to believe that here are actually microbes, which if not killed, could cause infection in a patient...heck, lets do away with anesthesia, who needs it, we will just do it the old way, and get the patient drunk, before amputating his leg...heck, lets do away with immunizations, because those who get those terrible diseases which immunizations prevent, are receiving a just curse, for something awful they have done...just lets denigrate flux in any field of study, and let the chips fall where they may...

Flux in fields of study, uncovering of new evidence in those fields of study, new technologies, new knowledge seems to frighten you...Flux in many fields of study, adds new knowledge to that field, makes that field more true, more beneficial to all concerned...

To you, it seems, flux is bad...Or is flux only bad where you see it in evolution, a field of study, which you seem to hate?

I find your view to be a sad one...

[donh]

accepting a theory as fact with a high degree of confidence you need direct observation or experimentation.

Huh. When was the last time you directly observed an atom splitting? A continental drift? A stellar lifetime on the Hartzsprung-Russell diagram? How do you think astronomers or plate tectonic geologists do experimentation? Why don't you think the same rules apply to paleontologists and micro-biologists?

The purpose for mentioning them is that there are many reading the forum that my not realize that there are scientists that do not believe in the Theory of Evolution.j

There are scientists who read their horoscopes every morning, do you think that makes astrology a well-accepted modern science?

[donh]

We could line up all sorts of “experts” on both sides to use as cannon fodder.

No, we couldn't. You could muster, at best, a handful, and their net credentials in evolutionary biology would amount to a fart in a hurricane.

We could compare our lists of books with one another or attack one another’s credentials.

You might want to have a look at "Finding Darwin's God" by an author of one of the most used College intro to bio texts, before touting "Darwin's Black Box" again.

(I fully expect that someone will call into question my intelligence and pick apart everything that I’ve written)

I think it's sufficient to point out that you vastly overrate the strength of the arguments you are touting.

[balrog666]

Fart-in-a-hurricane placemarker.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

Thank you. I think this particular site does very well at explaining technique. However, I think it generalizes too much. I do not think faith and belief should necessarily be listed as examples of irrational epistemology. They can be, if they are lumped into the "it's true because I say so" category. Faith and belief, however, can also be the result of knowledge, experience, and observation. When based on these things, a very well thought, reasoned, and rational argument can be made for their existence. It is more abstract though because it is not based on empirical evidence.

[Fruit of the Spirit]

http://evolution-facts.org/introductory_scientists_speak_about_evolution_1.htm

Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin, *Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionists cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.

An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is NOT known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.


"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."—*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].

"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.

"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.

"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.

"'The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "—Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].

"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."—*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].

"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "—*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).